Where does the constitution give federal judges the power to repeal laws?

[Conservative65]

What your doing is saying the Constitution says something it simply doesn't SAY.

Wrong....as the constitution does grant the judiciary the Judicial Power. Which, like the Executive Power, it doesn't define explicitly. But which the Federalist Papers make ridiculously obvious that the founders understood.

And your 'unless the constitution defines the term, there is no definitive' argument is garbage. As the constitution is riddled with terms that it doesn't define but have significant impact on its application. You yourself reject the ''unless the constitution defines the term' standard.....by concluding that the Executive Power includes all sorts of powers that the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention.

Like arrest, enforcement and incarceration. All of which the Executive obviously does have. And as the Federalist Papers, history, and simple common sense demonstrate, was intended to. Just like the Judicial Power includes the authority to interpret the constitution.

So even you don't buy your own bullshit. And I certainly have no use for it.

Federalist 78 isn't the Constitution. You saying because Federalist 78 says something that means it's in the Constitution. What article, section, and clause says what you say the Constitution is stating?

The job of the President is to faithfully execute the laws. Ever heard of a thesaurus. Carry out, enforce, fulfill, etc. mean execute, hence, the term executive.

Are you really that stupid?

Then your 'twisting to say what you want' argument just fell apart. As we BOTH agree that I've accurately cited the Federalist Papers. And that they indicate that the Judicial Power *does* include both the power to interpret the constitution and the obligation of the Judiciary to give preference to the constitution over a statute that violates it.

You simply choose to ignore the Federalist Papers. And apply a standard that even you ignore when its inconvenient. As the powers you attribute to the Executive aren't mentioned anywhere in the constitution explicitly.

I didn't say you didn't accurately cite the Federalist Papers. What I said is that they aren't the Constitution, something you still haven't shown has the direct, delegated authority to declare a law unconstitutional. The Federalist Papers can say whatever but they weren't adopted as the principles behind which the government is supposed to run.

Your exact words were:

You take things and twist them to make it fit what you WANT it to say.

Which you now admit is bullshit. I've twisted nothing. I've accurately cited the Federalist Papers describing the Judicial Power. You've ignored the Federalist Papers, insisting that you know better than the Founders what role the Judiciary is supposed to play.

The direct, delegated authority is the Judicial Power, cited specifically in the constitution. Which Federalist Paper 78 makes ludicrously clear includes the power to interpret the constitution and apply a greater obligation to the constitution than to a statute. And no, you don't know more than the Founders on the role of the Judiciary.

Oh, and you've wiped your ass with your own standard. As there's no mention of arrest, incarceration or enforcement in the constitution. Yet you've concluded that these powers, not specifically delegated by the constitution, are part of the Executive Power. Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit argument.

Which is convenient. Neither do I, did the founders, history, the Executive or the Judiciary.

the only thing you buy is what you simple mind has been fooled into believing.

More accurately, I conclude that the Federalist Papers do a far better job telling us what the Constitution means than you do, citing yourself.

Thanks for proving what I claimed. YOU conclude which means YOU twist something to make it say what you WANT it to say.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ever heard of checks and balances?

So who acts as a check on the Supreme Court? No one does since they serve for life.

But the voters act as a check on congress and that's why i want them judging whether a law is constitutional or not.

WTF? You want Congress to be the arbitrator of the very laws they themselves write??

Then what recourse do we the people have if, let's say, Congress passes an enabling act, declaring Obama is now fuhrer of America, will remain as president indefinately, and has plenary powers to pass laws, and there will be no more elections?

According to your nonsense, our only recourse is to revolt; when in reality, the Framers instituted a recourse through the judicial branch to determine the constitutionality of such a law.

Laughing......in Shooters imagination, the USSC has jurisdiction over all cases that arise under the constitution. But can't rule against any law that may be challenged in those cases.

Worse, in the face of an unconstitutional law, the people could make NO legal challenges. Per Shooter, anyway.

It's quite depressing that so many people don't understand the basics of their own constitution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wrong....as the constitution does grant the judiciary the Judicial Power. Which, like the Executive Power, it doesn't define explicitly. But which the Federalist Papers make ridiculously obvious that the founders understood.

And your 'unless the constitution defines the term, there is no definitive' argument is garbage. As the constitution is riddled with terms that it doesn't define but have significant impact on its application. You yourself reject the ''unless the constitution defines the term' standard.....by concluding that the Executive Power includes all sorts of powers that the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention.

Like arrest, enforcement and incarceration. All of which the Executive obviously does have. And as the Federalist Papers, history, and simple common sense demonstrate, was intended to. Just like the Judicial Power includes the authority to interpret the constitution.

So even you don't buy your own bullshit. And I certainly have no use for it.

Then your 'twisting to say what you want' argument just fell apart. As we BOTH agree that I've accurately cited the Federalist Papers. And that they indicate that the Judicial Power *does* include both the power to interpret the constitution and the obligation of the Judiciary to give preference to the constitution over a statute that violates it.

You simply choose to ignore the Federalist Papers. And apply a standard that even you ignore when its inconvenient. As the powers you attribute to the Executive aren't mentioned anywhere in the constitution explicitly.

I didn't say you didn't accurately cite the Federalist Papers. What I said is that they aren't the Constitution, something you still haven't shown has the direct, delegated authority to declare a law unconstitutional. The Federalist Papers can say whatever but they weren't adopted as the principles behind which the government is supposed to run.

Your exact words were:

You take things and twist them to make it fit what you WANT it to say.

Which you now admit is bullshit. I've twisted nothing. I've accurately cited the Federalist Papers describing the Judicial Power. You've ignored the Federalist Papers, insisting that you know better than the Founders what role the Judiciary is supposed to play.

The direct, delegated authority is the Judicial Power, cited specifically in the constitution. Which Federalist Paper 78 makes ludicrously clear includes the power to interpret the constitution and apply a greater obligation to the constitution than to a statute. And no, you don't know more than the Founders on the role of the Judiciary.

Oh, and you've wiped your ass with your own standard. As there's no mention of arrest, incarceration or enforcement in the constitution. Yet you've concluded that these powers, not specifically delegated by the constitution, are part of the Executive Power. Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit argument.

Which is convenient. Neither do I, did the founders, history, the Executive or the Judiciary.

the only thing you buy is what you simple mind has been fooled into believing.

More accurately, I conclude that the Federalist Papers do a far better job telling us what the Constitution means than you do, citing yourself.

Thanks for proving what I claimed. YOU conclude which means YOU twist something to make it say what you WANT it to say.

Actually he is proving his case and showing what is in reality, and you're making stuff up that has basis only in your own mind.

Who would you believe?

 

[Conservative65]

I didn't say you didn't accurately cite the Federalist Papers. What I said is that they aren't the Constitution, something you still haven't shown has the direct, delegated authority to declare a law unconstitutional. The Federalist Papers can say whatever but they weren't adopted as the principles behind which the government is supposed to run.

Your exact words were:

You take things and twist them to make it fit what you WANT it to say.

Which you now admit is bullshit. I've twisted nothing. I've accurately cited the Federalist Papers describing the Judicial Power. You've ignored the Federalist Papers, insisting that you know better than the Founders what role the Judiciary is supposed to play.

The direct, delegated authority is the Judicial Power, cited specifically in the constitution. Which Federalist Paper 78 makes ludicrously clear includes the power to interpret the constitution and apply a greater obligation to the constitution than to a statute. And no, you don't know more than the Founders on the role of the Judiciary.

Oh, and you've wiped your ass with your own standard. As there's no mention of arrest, incarceration or enforcement in the constitution. Yet you've concluded that these powers, not specifically delegated by the constitution, are part of the Executive Power. Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit argument.

Which is convenient. Neither do I, did the founders, history, the Executive or the Judiciary.

the only thing you buy is what you simple mind has been fooled into believing.

More accurately, I conclude that the Federalist Papers do a far better job telling us what the Constitution means than you do, citing yourself.

Thanks for proving what I claimed. YOU conclude which means YOU twist something to make it say what you WANT it to say.

Actually he is proving his case and showing what is in reality, and you're making stuff up that has basis only in your own mind.

Who would you believe?

Interesting how you equate the same belief with someone as being correct. Typical.

 

[Skylar]

Your exact words were:

Which you now admit is bullshit. I've twisted nothing. I've accurately cited the Federalist Papers describing the Judicial Power. You've ignored the Federalist Papers, insisting that you know better than the Founders what role the Judiciary is supposed to play.

The direct, delegated authority is the Judicial Power, cited specifically in the constitution. Which Federalist Paper 78 makes ludicrously clear includes the power to interpret the constitution and apply a greater obligation to the constitution than to a statute. And no, you don't know more than the Founders on the role of the Judiciary.

Oh, and you've wiped your ass with your own standard. As there's no mention of arrest, incarceration or enforcement in the constitution. Yet you've concluded that these powers, not specifically delegated by the constitution, are part of the Executive Power. Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit argument.

Which is convenient. Neither do I, did the founders, history, the Executive or the Judiciary.

the only thing you buy is what you simple mind has been fooled into believing.

More accurately, I conclude that the Federalist Papers do a far better job telling us what the Constitution means than you do, citing yourself.

Thanks for proving what I claimed. YOU conclude which means YOU twist something to make it say what you WANT it to say.

Actually he is proving his case and showing what is in reality, and you're making stuff up that has basis only in your own mind.

Who would you believe?

Interesting how you equate the same belief with someone as being correct. Typical.

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, writer of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

 

[Conservative65]

the only thing you buy is what you simple mind has been fooled into believing.

More accurately, I conclude that the Federalist Papers do a far better job telling us what the Constitution means than you do, citing yourself.

Thanks for proving what I claimed. YOU conclude which means YOU twist something to make it say what you WANT it to say.

Actually he is proving his case and showing what is in reality, and you're making stuff up that has basis only in your own mind.

Who would you believe?

Interesting how you equate the same belief with someone as being correct. Typical.

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

 

[Skylar]

Wrong....as the constitution does grant the judiciary the Judicial Power. Which, like the Executive Power, it doesn't define explicitly. But which the Federalist Papers make ridiculously obvious that the founders understood.

And your 'unless the constitution defines the term, there is no definitive' argument is garbage. As the constitution is riddled with terms that it doesn't define but have significant impact on its application. You yourself reject the ''unless the constitution defines the term' standard.....by concluding that the Executive Power includes all sorts of powers that the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention.

Like arrest, enforcement and incarceration. All of which the Executive obviously does have. And as the Federalist Papers, history, and simple common sense demonstrate, was intended to. Just like the Judicial Power includes the authority to interpret the constitution.

So even you don't buy your own bullshit. And I certainly have no use for it.

Then your 'twisting to say what you want' argument just fell apart. As we BOTH agree that I've accurately cited the Federalist Papers. And that they indicate that the Judicial Power *does* include both the power to interpret the constitution and the obligation of the Judiciary to give preference to the constitution over a statute that violates it.

You simply choose to ignore the Federalist Papers. And apply a standard that even you ignore when its inconvenient. As the powers you attribute to the Executive aren't mentioned anywhere in the constitution explicitly.

I didn't say you didn't accurately cite the Federalist Papers. What I said is that they aren't the Constitution, something you still haven't shown has the direct, delegated authority to declare a law unconstitutional. The Federalist Papers can say whatever but they weren't adopted as the principles behind which the government is supposed to run.

Your exact words were:

You take things and twist them to make it fit what you WANT it to say.

Which you now admit is bullshit. I've twisted nothing. I've accurately cited the Federalist Papers describing the Judicial Power. You've ignored the Federalist Papers, insisting that you know better than the Founders what role the Judiciary is supposed to play.

The direct, delegated authority is the Judicial Power, cited specifically in the constitution. Which Federalist Paper 78 makes ludicrously clear includes the power to interpret the constitution and apply a greater obligation to the constitution than to a statute. And no, you don't know more than the Founders on the role of the Judiciary.

Oh, and you've wiped your ass with your own standard. As there's no mention of arrest, incarceration or enforcement in the constitution. Yet you've concluded that these powers, not specifically delegated by the constitution, are part of the Executive Power. Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit argument.

Which is convenient. Neither do I, did the founders, history, the Executive or the Judiciary.

the only thing you buy is what you simple mind has been fooled into believing.

More accurately, I conclude that the Federalist Papers do a far better job telling us what the Constitution means than you do, citing yourself.

Thanks for proving what I claimed. YOU conclude which means YOU twist something to make it say what you WANT it to say.

More blithering nonsense. You've already admitted that I've accurately cited the Federalist Papers on the role of the Judiciary. There's no 'twisting' involved. The word you're looking for is 'quoting'.

While your only source being *yourself*. And you're nobody. In any contest between you and the Federalist Papers on what the constitution is supposed to mean, you lose. As you have no idea what you're talking about. And the Federalists were the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

You may equate whatever hapless nonsense you make up with the Federalist Papers. But no rational person ever would.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your exact words were:

Which you now admit is bullshit. I've twisted nothing. I've accurately cited the Federalist Papers describing the Judicial Power. You've ignored the Federalist Papers, insisting that you know better than the Founders what role the Judiciary is supposed to play.

The direct, delegated authority is the Judicial Power, cited specifically in the constitution. Which Federalist Paper 78 makes ludicrously clear includes the power to interpret the constitution and apply a greater obligation to the constitution than to a statute. And no, you don't know more than the Founders on the role of the Judiciary.

Oh, and you've wiped your ass with your own standard. As there's no mention of arrest, incarceration or enforcement in the constitution. Yet you've concluded that these powers, not specifically delegated by the constitution, are part of the Executive Power. Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit argument.

Which is convenient. Neither do I, did the founders, history, the Executive or the Judiciary.

the only thing you buy is what you simple mind has been fooled into believing.

More accurately, I conclude that the Federalist Papers do a far better job telling us what the Constitution means than you do, citing yourself.

Thanks for proving what I claimed. YOU conclude which means YOU twist something to make it say what you WANT it to say.

Actually he is proving his case and showing what is in reality, and you're making stuff up that has basis only in your own mind.

Who would you believe?

Interesting how you equate the same belief with someone as being correct. Typical.

Interesting how I've looked at the history and the politics of the issue and come to the same conclusion as someone who has looked at the history and politics of the issue, and I come to a completely different conclusion with someone who's just making it up as they go along.

 

[frigidweirdo]

More accurately, I conclude that the Federalist Papers do a far better job telling us what the Constitution means than you do, citing yourself.

Thanks for proving what I claimed. YOU conclude which means YOU twist something to make it say what you WANT it to say.

Actually he is proving his case and showing what is in reality, and you're making stuff up that has basis only in your own mind.

Who would you believe?

Interesting how you equate the same belief with someone as being correct. Typical.

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Seriously? Is this all you've got? You're picking and choosing what sources people can use, because the only argument you've got is "it's not in the Constitution" when it is, it's there, judicial power.

 

[Skylar]

More accurately, I conclude that the Federalist Papers do a far better job telling us what the Constitution means than you do, citing yourself.

Thanks for proving what I claimed. YOU conclude which means YOU twist something to make it say what you WANT it to say.

Actually he is proving his case and showing what is in reality, and you're making stuff up that has basis only in your own mind.

Who would you believe?

Interesting how you equate the same belief with someone as being correct. Typical.

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Laughing......you mistake me for yourself. You've got nothing. I've got 2 centuries of jurisprudence that back my claims. The Federalist Papers that say otherwise. History says that says otherwise. The Founders that say otherwise.

You .....have yourself. And you're nobody.

Worse, even you don't believe your own argument. As there's no explicit power delegated to the Executive to arrest anyone. Or incarcerate anyone. Or enforce any law. Yet you acknowledge that ALL of these powers are part of the Executive Power. Simply obliterating your 'unless you can show me the words in the constitution' argument.

As even you don't buy your own bullshit. And of course, I have no use for you.

 

[Conservative65]

Thanks for proving what I claimed. YOU conclude which means YOU twist something to make it say what you WANT it to say.

Actually he is proving his case and showing what is in reality, and you're making stuff up that has basis only in your own mind.

Who would you believe?

Interesting how you equate the same belief with someone as being correct. Typical.

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Seriously? Is this all you've got? You're picking and choosing what sources people can use, because the only argument you've got is "it's not in the Constitution" when it is, it's there, judicial power.

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

 

[Conservative65]

Thanks for proving what I claimed. YOU conclude which means YOU twist something to make it say what you WANT it to say.

Actually he is proving his case and showing what is in reality, and you're making stuff up that has basis only in your own mind.

Who would you believe?

Interesting how you equate the same belief with someone as being correct. Typical.

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Laughing......you mistake me for yourself. You've got nothing. I've got 2 centuries of jurisprudence that back my claims. The Federalist Papers that say otherwise. History says that says otherwise. The Founders that say otherwise.

You .....have yourself. And you're nobody.

Worse, even you don't believe your own argument. As there's no explicit power delegated to the Executive to arrest anyone. Or incarcerate anyone. Or enforce any law. Yet you acknowledge that ALL of these powers are part of the Executive Power. Simply obliterating your 'unless you can show me the words in the constitution' argument.

As even you don't buy your own bullshit. And of course, I have no use for you.

I'm someone that if I say the authority exists can show you the words that specifically say it. You can't. That puts me many levels above your pitiful existence.

I bet you're the kind that thinks general welfare means social welfare.

 

[Skylar]

Actually he is proving his case and showing what is in reality, and you're making stuff up that has basis only in your own mind.

Who would you believe?

Interesting how you equate the same belief with someone as being correct. Typical.

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Seriously? Is this all you've got? You're picking and choosing what sources people can use, because the only argument you've got is "it's not in the Constitution" when it is, it's there, judicial power.

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

Where does it specifically say that the Executive can arrest anyone? Or incarcerate anyone? Or enforce any law?

Yet you ignore your own 'it has to be in the constitution' standard and recognize all of these powers as being part of the executive power, despite never being explicitly articulated. Meaning even YOU don't believe your own bullshit. As you ignored your own standard with the Executive.

Watch, I'll make you do it again. Where does it say that congress can delegate its authority to say, mint coins? No where. Thus, per your 'if its no in the constitution' argument, congress can't delegate those powers. With the members of congress THEMSELVES being the only people who are allowed under your interpretation of the constitution, to work the coin presses and mint coins.

If not, why not.

 

[Conservative65]

Interesting how you equate the same belief with someone as being correct. Typical.

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Seriously? Is this all you've got? You're picking and choosing what sources people can use, because the only argument you've got is "it's not in the Constitution" when it is, it's there, judicial power.

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

Where does it specifically say that the Executive can arrest anyone? Or incarcerate anyone? Or enforce any law?

Yet you ignore your own 'it has to be in the constitution' standard and recognize all of these powers as being part of the executive power, despite never being explicitly articulated. Meaning even YOU don't believe your own bullshit. As you ignored your own standard with the Executive.

Watch, I'll make you do it again. Where does it say that congress can delegate its authority to say, mint coins? No where. Thus, per your 'if its no in the constitution' argument, congress can't delegate those powers. With the members of congress THEMSELVES being the only people who are allowed under your interpretation of the constitution, to work the coin presses and mint coins.

If not, why not.

You assume I agree that the executive should be able to arrest people?

We've gone over what the term faithfully execute means. It means to enforce or carry out retard.

Congress having the authority to coin money doesn't mean they have to work the presses themselves. That's a stupid argument from the dumbest piece of shit on the planet, you. You really are that stupid. That's what happens when people drink during pregnancy. It's lessens the cognitive ability of the turds they shit out.

 

[Skylar]

Actually he is proving his case and showing what is in reality, and you're making stuff up that has basis only in your own mind.

Who would you believe?

Interesting how you equate the same belief with someone as being correct. Typical.

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Laughing......you mistake me for yourself. You've got nothing. I've got 2 centuries of jurisprudence that back my claims. The Federalist Papers that say otherwise. History says that says otherwise. The Founders that say otherwise.

You .....have yourself. And you're nobody.

Worse, even you don't believe your own argument. As there's no explicit power delegated to the Executive to arrest anyone. Or incarcerate anyone. Or enforce any law. Yet you acknowledge that ALL of these powers are part of the Executive Power. Simply obliterating your 'unless you can show me the words in the constitution' argument.

As even you don't buy your own bullshit. And of course, I have no use for you.

I'm someone that if I say the authority exists can show you the words that specifically say it. You can't.

No, that's not what you're saying. As when we talk of the Executive Power of the powers of COngress, you don't use that standard. You recognize all sorts of powers that aren't explictly mentioned. The power of the executive to arrest, incarcerate, or enforce laws. Which is explicitly mentioned no where in the constitution.

So explicit definition of the terms like the 'Executive Power' or the 'Judicial Power' isn't your argument. As you ignore the very standard you've set.

Worse, you ignore the Federalist Papers where they lay out in plain, simple language what the Judicial Power is....insisting that YOU know better what the Judicial power than the founders did.

Um, you don't.

That puts me many levels above your pitiful existence.

I bet you're the kind that thinks general welfare means social welfare.

Laughing....says the poor soul that just ignored his own standard and insists that he knows better what the constitution means than the founders did.

You're a legend in your own mind, kiddo. In the real world, you're nobody.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually he is proving his case and showing what is in reality, and you're making stuff up that has basis only in your own mind.

Who would you believe?

Interesting how you equate the same belief with someone as being correct. Typical.

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Seriously? Is this all you've got? You're picking and choosing what sources people can use, because the only argument you've got is "it's not in the Constitution" when it is, it's there, judicial power.

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

What is Judicial Power? What is Legislative Power? The answer to this is found in history. Specific to the US Constitution, where the power is different to other countries.

The Constitution is vague. It doesn't specify what freedom of speech is. All Rights have limits. How do we know this? From the Constitution? No.

The 2nd Amendment says the RKBA "shall not be infringed" YET prisoners aren't allowed guns. We can't see this from the vague statement in the US Constitution. We have to look at history to see WHY this is the case.

The Constitution is a document which requires a lot more evidence than the constitution itself. The interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is essential in understanding, for example. All lawyers must learn about this for a reason.

 

[Faun]

Actually he is proving his case and showing what is in reality, and you're making stuff up that has basis only in your own mind.

Who would you believe?

Interesting how you equate the same belief with someone as being correct. Typical.

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Laughing......you mistake me for yourself. You've got nothing. I've got 2 centuries of jurisprudence that back my claims. The Federalist Papers that say otherwise. History says that says otherwise. The Founders that say otherwise.

You .....have yourself. And you're nobody.

Worse, even you don't believe your own argument. As there's no explicit power delegated to the Executive to arrest anyone. Or incarcerate anyone. Or enforce any law. Yet you acknowledge that ALL of these powers are part of the Executive Power. Simply obliterating your 'unless you can show me the words in the constitution' argument.

As even you don't buy your own bullshit. And of course, I have no use for you.

I'm someone that if I say the authority exists can show you the words that specifically say it. You can't. That puts me many levels above your pitiful existence.

I bet you're the kind that thinks general welfare means social welfare.

Why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

 

[Conservative65]

Interesting how you equate the same belief with someone as being correct. Typical.

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Laughing......you mistake me for yourself. You've got nothing. I've got 2 centuries of jurisprudence that back my claims. The Federalist Papers that say otherwise. History says that says otherwise. The Founders that say otherwise.

You .....have yourself. And you're nobody.

Worse, even you don't believe your own argument. As there's no explicit power delegated to the Executive to arrest anyone. Or incarcerate anyone. Or enforce any law. Yet you acknowledge that ALL of these powers are part of the Executive Power. Simply obliterating your 'unless you can show me the words in the constitution' argument.

As even you don't buy your own bullshit. And of course, I have no use for you.

I'm someone that if I say the authority exists can show you the words that specifically say it. You can't. That puts me many levels above your pitiful existence.

I bet you're the kind that thinks general welfare means social welfare.

Why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

Why would it include it? They don't mean the same thing. People like you and Skylar use the writings of the founders to support you claims about what he Constitution means then go outside that when you want something to say it a certain way. Nothing in the writings of the founders indicate general meant social welfare handouts.

 

[Skylar]

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Seriously? Is this all you've got? You're picking and choosing what sources people can use, because the only argument you've got is "it's not in the Constitution" when it is, it's there, judicial power.

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

Where does it specifically say that the Executive can arrest anyone? Or incarcerate anyone? Or enforce any law?

Yet you ignore your own 'it has to be in the constitution' standard and recognize all of these powers as being part of the executive power, despite never being explicitly articulated. Meaning even YOU don't believe your own bullshit. As you ignored your own standard with the Executive.

Watch, I'll make you do it again. Where does it say that congress can delegate its authority to say, mint coins? No where. Thus, per your 'if its no in the constitution' argument, congress can't delegate those powers. With the members of congress THEMSELVES being the only people who are allowed under your interpretation of the constitution, to work the coin presses and mint coins.

If not, why not.

You assume I agree that the executive should be able to arrest people?

Show me where in the Constitution that power is explicitly articulated. I just checked. THe word 'arrest' isn't mentioned anywhere. Neither is 'incarcerate'. Nor 'enforce'.

But of course, you ignore your own standard. As you don't actually believe it. Which convenient....as I don't buy your standard either. No one does. Not the founders, the Federal Papers, the courts, history, anyone.

Its just you, citing you. And you're nobody.

Congress having the authority to coin money doesn't mean they have to work the presses themselves. . That's a stupid argument from the dumbest piece of shit on the planet, you. You really are that stupid. That's what happens when people drink during pregnancy. It's lessens the cognitive ability of the turds they shit out.

Oh, hyper literalistic interpretations of the constitution are quite stupid. But this is your standard. You're stuck with it.

Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to delegate its authority to mint coins?

Quote the passage.

If you can't quote such a passage, then by the brain dead standards of hyper-literalism, ONLY the members of Congress has the authority to mint coins. There's no one else than can do this.

Or.....you can wipe your ass with your standards yet again. I'll only point and laugh again a little. I promise.

 

[Conservative65]

Interesting how you equate the same belief with someone as being correct. Typical.

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Seriously? Is this all you've got? You're picking and choosing what sources people can use, because the only argument you've got is "it's not in the Constitution" when it is, it's there, judicial power.

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

What is Judicial Power? What is Legislative Power? The answer to this is found in history. Specific to the US Constitution, where the power is different to other countries.

The Constitution is vague. It doesn't specify what freedom of speech is. All Rights have limits. How do we know this? From the Constitution? No.

The 2nd Amendment says the RKBA "shall not be infringed" YET prisoners aren't allowed guns. We can't see this from the vague statement in the US Constitution. We have to look at history to see WHY this is the case.

The Constitution is a document which requires a lot more evidence than the constitution itself. The interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is essential in understanding, for example. All lawyers must learn about this for a reason.

Still can't point to the words? Your answer supports me. You claim it's vague yet support someone who says it's absolutely clear. Which one is it?